The COVID-19 Vaccines Global Access Facility (COVAX) represents an unprecedented global collaboration facilitating the development and distribution of vaccines for COVID-19. COVAX pools and channels funds from state and non-state actors to promising vaccine candidates, and has started to distribute successful candidates to participating states. The WHO, one of the leaders of COVAX, recognised vaccine doses would initially be scarce, and therefore, prepared a two-staged allocation mechanism they considered fair. In the first stage, vaccine doses are distributed equally among participating countries, while in the second stage vaccine doses will be allocated according to a country’s need. Ethicists have questioned whether this is the fairest distribution—they argue a country’s need should be taken into account from the start and correspondingly, have proposed a framework that treats individuals with equal moral concern, aims to minimise harm and gives priority to the worst-off. In this paper, we seek to explore these concerns by comparing COVAX’s allocation mechanism to a targeted allocation based on need. We consider which distribution would more likely maximise well-being and align with principles of equity. We conclude that although in theory, a targeted distribution in proportion to a country’s need would be more morally justifiable, when political realities are taken into account, an equal distribution seems more likely to avert a greater number of deaths and reduce disparities.

HighlightsThe majority of ingested foreign bodies pass through the gastrointestinal tract harmlessly.Ingested foreign bodies can cause significant complications like bowel obstruction, bleeding, abscess formation, migration to other organs, and perforation.In selected cases, endoscopic management is more cost-effective, minimally invasive, has less post-operative complications, and leads to a more expeditious recovery.

Background Sustained elevated concentration of GHGs is predicted to increase global mortality. With the Australian health sector responsible for 7% of the nation’s GHG emissions, the benefits and costs of various decarbonisation trajectories are currently being investigated. To assist with this effort, we model the impact earlier decarbonisation has on temperature-related mortality. Design We used DICE-EMR, an Integrated Assessment Model with an endogenous mortality response, to simulate Australian GHG trajectories and estimate the temperature-related mortality impact of early decarbonisation. We modelled a linear decline of the Australian health sector’s and economy’s GHG annual emissions to net-zero targets of 2040 and 2050. Main outcome measure Deaths averted and monetary-equivalent welfare gain. Results Decarbonisation of the Australian health sector by 2050 and 2040 is projected to avert an estimated 69,000 and 77,000 global temperature-related deaths respectively in a Baseline global emissions scenario. Australian economy decarbonisation by 2050 and 2040 is projected to avert an estimated 988,000 and 1,101,000 global deaths respectively. Assuming a low discount rate and high global emissions trajectory, we estimate a monetary equivalent welfare gain of $151 billion if the Australian health sector decarbonises by 2040, only accounting for the benefits in reducing temperature-related mortality. Conclusions Earlier decarbonisation has a significant impact on temperature-related mortality. Many uncertainties exist and health impacts other than temperature-related mortality are not captured by this analysis. Nevertheless, such models can help communicate the health risk of climate change and improve climate policy decision making.